https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #21 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #20) > (In reply to mwahab from comment #19) > > (In reply to Andrew Haley from comment #18) > > > > It looks inconsistent with C11 S7.17.7.4-2 (C++11 S29.6.4-21) "Further, if > > the comparison is true, memory is affected according to the value of > > success, and if the comparison is false, memory is affected according to the > > value of failure." (where success and failure are the memory model > > arguments.) In this case, the write to *exp should be memory_order_seq_cst. > > But no store actually takes place, so the only effect is that of the read. > You can't have a sequentially consistent store without a store. I agree. If you continue reading in the C++11 paragraph that you cited, you'll see that if just one MO is provided and the CAS fails, an acq_rel MO is downgraded to acquire and a release MO to relaxed. This is consistent with no update of the atomic variable (note that expected is not atomic, so applying an MO to accesses to it is not meaningful in any case). However, if the provided MO is seq_cst, I think a failed CAS still needs to be equivalent to a seq_cst load.
